The US–China trade war has profoundly reshaped global agricultural markets, yet the consequences of protectionist measures for domestic public attitudes—particularly within collectivist societies like China—have been underexplored. This study investigates how Chinese citizens perceive retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural products and explores how awareness of economic self‐interest shapes their support for such policies. We develop a simple theoretical model showing that trade policy attitudes are shaped by both social values and economic beliefs, with the influence of new information moderated by trust and cognitive capacity. The model predicts that information interventions can recalibrate beliefs towards actual economic interests, with effects varying by information credibility and individual human capital. Employing a randomised controlled trial in 2023, we demonstrate that backing for trade protection in China is robustly associated with collectivist values. Individuals demonstrate a strong propensity of alignment with government positions over economic self‐interests. However, when people learn about how tariffs will personally affect their household costs, they become less supportive of trade protection because they revise their expectations about economic consequences. Notably, the efficacy of these interventions depends critically on the respondents' trust in information and their level of human capital. Our findings offer new insights into the dynamics of public opinion formation in contexts where information flows are state‐mediated, with direct implications for the design of agricultural and trade policy communication strategies.
{"title":"Information, Beliefs and Support for Retaliatory Tariffs on US Agricultural Products: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial in China","authors":"Guiwang Ling, Xi Tian","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70020","url":null,"abstract":"The US–China trade war has profoundly reshaped global agricultural markets, yet the consequences of protectionist measures for domestic public attitudes—particularly within collectivist societies like China—have been underexplored. This study investigates how Chinese citizens perceive retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural products and explores how awareness of economic self‐interest shapes their support for such policies. We develop a simple theoretical model showing that trade policy attitudes are shaped by both social values and economic beliefs, with the influence of new information moderated by trust and cognitive capacity. The model predicts that information interventions can recalibrate beliefs towards actual economic interests, with effects varying by information credibility and individual human capital. Employing a randomised controlled trial in 2023, we demonstrate that backing for trade protection in China is robustly associated with collectivist values. Individuals demonstrate a strong propensity of alignment with government positions over economic self‐interests. However, when people learn about how tariffs will personally affect their household costs, they become less supportive of trade protection because they revise their expectations about economic consequences. Notably, the efficacy of these interventions depends critically on the respondents' trust in information and their level of human capital. Our findings offer new insights into the dynamics of public opinion formation in contexts where information flows are state‐mediated, with direct implications for the design of agricultural and trade policy communication strategies.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145801227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yanbing Wang, Christian Ritzel, Nadja El Benni, Robert Finger, Gabriele Mack
Although both protected areas and agri‐environment schemes (AES) aim to conserve biodiversity, the interaction between the two policy instruments is unknown. We investigate the effects of listing a region as a protected area (a regional nature park) on the uptake of biodiversity conservation AES within the region. Using panel data of all Swiss farms between 2005 and 2020, and survey data on 15 Swiss regional nature parks established between 2008 and 2018, we analyse the effects of park establishment on farmers' adoption of three types of AES for biodiversity conservation (action‐based, result‐based, and agglomeration) in a heterogeneity‐robust difference‐in‐differences framework. Overall, parks significantly increase the adoption of result‐based AES. Moreover, the park effect depends largely on the agricultural baseline where parks are established. In regions with relatively more intensive agricultural production and lower AES adoption beforehand, the establishment of parks increases the adoption of result‐based and agglomeration AES, evidencing synergies between the two policies. Such effects are not observed in regions with more extensive agricultural production and high AES adoption prior to park establishment. Moreover, the effects of park establishment increase over time. Therefore, when introducing a new policy aimed at integrating biodiversity conservation into agriculture, it is important to account for baseline situations and identify synergies between intended and existing policies.
{"title":"Protected Areas and Agricultural Biodiversity Conservation—Do Parks Increase AES Adoption?","authors":"Yanbing Wang, Christian Ritzel, Nadja El Benni, Robert Finger, Gabriele Mack","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70017","url":null,"abstract":"Although both protected areas and agri‐environment schemes (AES) aim to conserve biodiversity, the interaction between the two policy instruments is unknown. We investigate the effects of listing a region as a protected area (a regional nature park) on the uptake of biodiversity conservation AES within the region. Using panel data of all Swiss farms between 2005 and 2020, and survey data on 15 Swiss regional nature parks established between 2008 and 2018, we analyse the effects of park establishment on farmers' adoption of three types of AES for biodiversity conservation (action‐based, result‐based, and agglomeration) in a heterogeneity‐robust difference‐in‐differences framework. Overall, parks significantly increase the adoption of result‐based AES. Moreover, the park effect depends largely on the agricultural baseline where parks are established. In regions with relatively more intensive agricultural production and lower AES adoption beforehand, the establishment of parks increases the adoption of result‐based and agglomeration AES, evidencing synergies between the two policies. Such effects are not observed in regions with more extensive agricultural production and high AES adoption prior to park establishment. Moreover, the effects of park establishment increase over time. Therefore, when introducing a new policy aimed at integrating biodiversity conservation into agriculture, it is important to account for baseline situations and identify synergies between intended and existing policies.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"217 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145704499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Valentino Marini Govigli, Evans Chimoita, Gianluca Di Fiore, Faten Khamassi, Josephine Kisakye, Noureddine Mokhtari, Renalda Nanziga Munubi, Emmanuel Lubango Ndetto, Simone Piras, Marco Setti
Time preferences play a critical role in the agri‐food value chains of low‐income countries, impacting the choices of local operators, including innovation uptake. This paper assesses the association between smallholder farmers' individual characteristics, their exposure to diverse adverse events, and their intertemporal choices using in‐the‐field experiments conducted across five African countries. By jointly estimating time and risk preferences, we find that farmers who have experienced social setbacks during the previous year are more likely to be patient. This suggests that time preferences may vary over time, particularly when farmers are exposed to social distress (e.g., food shortage, health issues, violence, or crime). Moreover, we find gender to be a prominent factor associated with farmers' time preferences, with female farmers showing greater patience. These findings hold direct implications for both research and public policy initiatives aimed at influencing agricultural choices in the aftermath of social distress. By understanding the factors influencing time preferences, policy practitioners can develop more targeted and effective strategies to support smallholder farmers, thereby enhancing the resilience of agri‐food value chains in low‐income countries.
{"title":"Do Adverse Events Influence Time Preferences? Evidence From Smallholder African Farmers","authors":"Valentino Marini Govigli, Evans Chimoita, Gianluca Di Fiore, Faten Khamassi, Josephine Kisakye, Noureddine Mokhtari, Renalda Nanziga Munubi, Emmanuel Lubango Ndetto, Simone Piras, Marco Setti","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70012","url":null,"abstract":"Time preferences play a critical role in the agri‐food value chains of low‐income countries, impacting the choices of local operators, including innovation uptake. This paper assesses the association between smallholder farmers' individual characteristics, their exposure to diverse adverse events, and their intertemporal choices using in‐the‐field experiments conducted across five African countries. By jointly estimating time and risk preferences, we find that farmers who have experienced social setbacks during the previous year are more likely to be patient. This suggests that time preferences may vary over time, particularly when farmers are exposed to social distress (e.g., food shortage, health issues, violence, or crime). Moreover, we find gender to be a prominent factor associated with farmers' time preferences, with female farmers showing greater patience. These findings hold direct implications for both research and public policy initiatives aimed at influencing agricultural choices in the aftermath of social distress. By understanding the factors influencing time preferences, policy practitioners can develop more targeted and effective strategies to support smallholder farmers, thereby enhancing the resilience of agri‐food value chains in low‐income countries.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145703836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ongoing structural transformations in many Sub‐Saharan African (SSA) economies are driving changes in labour inputs and wages, likely influencing smallholder agriculture and the direction of agricultural intensification processes. At the same time, the adoption of capital‐intensive technologies still remains puzzlingly low. This article, therefore, explores how smallholder farmers in Ghana, Tanzania and Malawi adapt their mix of production factors in response to evolving regional wage conditions. In particular, we investigate the nature of the relationship between capital and labour regarding their substitutability, given that the types of available capital and prevailing farming systems in SSA mean that mechanisation still requires significant complementary labour. Using a multi‐step method based on panel data, our results show that the elasticity of substitution between capital and labour is non‐unitary, indicating they are gross complements. In line with these findings, our binary choice model reveals that higher wages are likely to impede capital investment in African agriculture. Our findings corroborate recent literature from other regions and suggest that growth in the off‐farm economy could hinder the adoption of capital‐intensive agricultural technologies in SSA.
{"title":"Labour Dynamics, Factor Substitution and Capital Adoption in Sub‐Saharan African Agriculture","authors":"Pranav Patil, Franziska Schuenemann, Kenneth Strzepek","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70016","url":null,"abstract":"Ongoing structural transformations in many Sub‐Saharan African (SSA) economies are driving changes in labour inputs and wages, likely influencing smallholder agriculture and the direction of agricultural intensification processes. At the same time, the adoption of capital‐intensive technologies still remains puzzlingly low. This article, therefore, explores how smallholder farmers in Ghana, Tanzania and Malawi adapt their mix of production factors in response to evolving regional wage conditions. In particular, we investigate the nature of the relationship between capital and labour regarding their substitutability, given that the types of available capital and prevailing farming systems in SSA mean that mechanisation still requires significant complementary labour. Using a multi‐step method based on panel data, our results show that the elasticity of substitution between capital and labour is non‐unitary, indicating they are gross complements. In line with these findings, our binary choice model reveals that higher wages are likely to impede capital investment in African agriculture. Our findings corroborate recent literature from other regions and suggest that growth in the off‐farm economy could hinder the adoption of capital‐intensive agricultural technologies in SSA.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145680376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mariusz Hamulczuk, Grzegorz Szafrański, Karolina Pawlak, Daniel A. Sumner
Introducing and lifting COVID‐19 restrictions caused significant disruptions throughout the world economy, including in international trade. This study employs a panel gravity model to examine the impact of the pandemic on the agri‐food trade of EU countries. Specifically, we estimate the direct effects of the intensity of lockdown‐type policies on bilateral trade across country, product, and time dimensions, and the indirect effects of those policies as they work through domestic market impacts. We also decompose the indirect effects of COVID‐19 between the domestic demand side and supply side impacts. We provide insights into the sources of pandemic disruptions by comparing a ‘no‐COVID’ counterfactual scenario from March 2020 to February 2022 to the COVID‐19 reality. Our data analysis reveals a loss of 162 billion EUR in agri‐food trade due to direct and indirect effects of COVID‐19, equivalent to 11.3% of imports over the period. Approximately half of this total is comprised of intra‐EU bilateral trade. The COVID‐19 effects were proportionally greatest in the trade of fats and oils, and animal‐origin products, while vegetable‐origin and processed food products were affected only about half as much. Reduced intra‐industry demand was a dominant source of indirect effects in the trade of non‐processed food. In turn, the weakening of consumer demand was the main factor behind trade losses in processed food imports. The proportional trade impacts differ greatly across EU countries.
{"title":"Direct and Indirect Effects of the COVID ‐19 Pandemic on EU Agri‐Food Trade","authors":"Mariusz Hamulczuk, Grzegorz Szafrański, Karolina Pawlak, Daniel A. Sumner","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70015","url":null,"abstract":"Introducing and lifting COVID‐19 restrictions caused significant disruptions throughout the world economy, including in international trade. This study employs a panel gravity model to examine the impact of the pandemic on the agri‐food trade of EU countries. Specifically, we estimate the direct effects of the intensity of lockdown‐type policies on bilateral trade across country, product, and time dimensions, and the indirect effects of those policies as they work through domestic market impacts. We also decompose the indirect effects of COVID‐19 between the domestic demand side and supply side impacts. We provide insights into the sources of pandemic disruptions by comparing a ‘no‐COVID’ counterfactual scenario from March 2020 to February 2022 to the COVID‐19 reality. Our data analysis reveals a loss of 162 billion EUR in agri‐food trade due to direct and indirect effects of COVID‐19, equivalent to 11.3% of imports over the period. Approximately half of this total is comprised of intra‐EU bilateral trade. The COVID‐19 effects were proportionally greatest in the trade of fats and oils, and animal‐origin products, while vegetable‐origin and processed food products were affected only about half as much. Reduced intra‐industry demand was a dominant source of indirect effects in the trade of non‐processed food. In turn, the weakening of consumer demand was the main factor behind trade losses in processed food imports. The proportional trade impacts differ greatly across EU countries.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145680375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines how farm policies influence the composition and risk aversion of the farm sector using an agent‐based model based on Missouri crop farms. The analysis considers varying farmer risk aversion, payoffs from farming and other activities, and land competition. Policy scenarios include no policy, land subsidies and revenue floors. Findings indicate policies significantly affect who farms and sector‐wide risk aversion. Without policies, risk‐averse farmers exit, reducing sector‐wide risk aversion. Conversely, risk‐mitigating policies retain risk‐averse farmers, increasing sectoral risk aversion. The study further finds that altering the composition of individuals in the farm sector through risk‐reduction policies increases the demand for such policies. These results trace the risk‐reducing effects of policies from individual decisions about farm entry, expansion and exit to broader impacts on sector structure. For scientists, this highlights the need to consider sector‐level risk aversion as part of the research problem, not merely an exogenous aspect of a fixed population. For policymakers, results indicate that farm program design may affect who farms and lead to lower average risk tolerance, potentially increasing the demand for further publicly supported risk management tools.
{"title":"Farm Policies and Their Impact on Sector Composition and Risk Aversion","authors":"Theodoros Skevas, Wyatt Thompson","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70014","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines how farm policies influence the composition and risk aversion of the farm sector using an agent‐based model based on Missouri crop farms. The analysis considers varying farmer risk aversion, payoffs from farming and other activities, and land competition. Policy scenarios include no policy, land subsidies and revenue floors. Findings indicate policies significantly affect who farms and sector‐wide risk aversion. Without policies, risk‐averse farmers exit, reducing sector‐wide risk aversion. Conversely, risk‐mitigating policies retain risk‐averse farmers, increasing sectoral risk aversion. The study further finds that altering the composition of individuals in the farm sector through risk‐reduction policies increases the demand for such policies. These results trace the risk‐reducing effects of policies from individual decisions about farm entry, expansion and exit to broader impacts on sector structure. For scientists, this highlights the need to consider sector‐level risk aversion as part of the research problem, not merely an exogenous aspect of a fixed population. For policymakers, results indicate that farm program design may affect who farms and lead to lower average risk tolerance, potentially increasing the demand for further publicly supported risk management tools.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145509316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Using administrative data on low‐income populations, this study provides quasi‐experimental evidence on the impact of agricultural land titling on poverty reduction in rural China. We show that the staggered rollout of the programme at the town level significantly reduces household poverty incidence by enhancing labour incentives, facilitating the reallocation of labour to non‐agricultural sectors and increasing labour market participation among people with disabilities. We provide a simple theoretical framework with empirically testable predictions to interpret our results. Further analysis reveals that agricultural land titling promotes land reallocation and supports income growth through different channels for agricultural and non‐agricultural households. Additional evidence suggests that the programme mitigates vulnerability and reduces the risk of long‐term poverty. These findings illustrate how institutional reforms in property rights empower labour incentives among vulnerable groups, providing valuable insights for other developing countries aiming to achieve sustainable and inclusive poverty reduction.
{"title":"Effects of Agricultural Land Titling on Poverty Reduction in China","authors":"Haiyuan Wan, Weidong He, Kejun Xin, Yangyang Shen, Yangcheng Yu","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70013","url":null,"abstract":"Using administrative data on low‐income populations, this study provides quasi‐experimental evidence on the impact of agricultural land titling on poverty reduction in rural China. We show that the staggered rollout of the programme at the town level significantly reduces household poverty incidence by enhancing labour incentives, facilitating the reallocation of labour to non‐agricultural sectors and increasing labour market participation among people with disabilities. We provide a simple theoretical framework with empirically testable predictions to interpret our results. Further analysis reveals that agricultural land titling promotes land reallocation and supports income growth through different channels for agricultural and non‐agricultural households. Additional evidence suggests that the programme mitigates vulnerability and reduces the risk of long‐term poverty. These findings illustrate how institutional reforms in property rights empower labour incentives among vulnerable groups, providing valuable insights for other developing countries aiming to achieve sustainable and inclusive poverty reduction.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145498387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Drini Imami, Orjon Xhoxhi, Davit Babayan, Thomas Herzfeld, Rustam Rakhmetov
Despite the many studies providing evidence of the benefits of cooperatives, most small farms and farm households, particularly in transition economies, do not participate in them. This study analyses the effect of cooperative activity on farm performance using a large‐scale farm survey conducted in Armenia. In addition, it addresses the issue of heterogeneity, which is often overlooked in the literature. It looks at heterogeneity in terms of observed effect modifiers, which are measured covariates that can modify the causal effect of cooperation on a specific farm performance indicator. This is the first study that pays special attention to heterogeneity and uses the causal forest approach in the context of cooperative membership to characterise the drivers of treatment heterogeneity (i.e., variation in the causal impact of cooperative membership across farmers with different observable characteristics). Participation in cooperatives is associated with greater perceived farm performance among farmers with limited access to market information and low financial literacy. Similarly, higher benefits are observed for less experienced and older farmers, suggesting that cooperatives play a particularly important role in supporting more vulnerable subgroups.
{"title":"Treatment Effect Heterogeneity of Farmers Participating in Cooperatives","authors":"Drini Imami, Orjon Xhoxhi, Davit Babayan, Thomas Herzfeld, Rustam Rakhmetov","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70009","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the many studies providing evidence of the benefits of cooperatives, most small farms and farm households, particularly in transition economies, do not participate in them. This study analyses the effect of cooperative activity on farm performance using a large‐scale farm survey conducted in Armenia. In addition, it addresses the issue of heterogeneity, which is often overlooked in the literature. It looks at heterogeneity in terms of observed effect modifiers, which are measured covariates that can modify the causal effect of cooperation on a specific farm performance indicator. This is the first study that pays special attention to heterogeneity and uses the causal forest approach in the context of cooperative membership to characterise the drivers of treatment heterogeneity (i.e., variation in the causal impact of cooperative membership across farmers with different observable characteristics). Participation in cooperatives is associated with greater perceived farm performance among farmers with limited access to market information and low financial literacy. Similarly, higher benefits are observed for less experienced and older farmers, suggesting that cooperatives play a particularly important role in supporting more vulnerable subgroups.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145382304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Christoph Schulze, Klaus Glenk, Julian Sagebiel, Bettina Matzdorf
This study investigates farmer preferences for publicly and privately financed agri‐environmental contracts. Using a labelled Discrete Choice Experiment with 366 German grassland farmers, we examine trade‐offs between payment schemes (public/private), payment criteria (practice‐based/result‐based), collaboration options, and advisory services. Our results show that farmers require higher compensation for privately financed contracts compared to public ones. On average, respondents prefer practice‐based over result‐based payments and value free advisory services, particularly in private schemes. Preferences for collaborative implementation indicate a strong desire for autonomy. A key contribution of this study lies in integrating farmer identity into the analysis. Drawing on a psychometric scale of ‘good farmer’ attributes, we identify three latent identities—productivist, environmentalist and civic‐minded—and show that these significantly explain heterogeneity in preferences and land enrolment decisions. Productivist farmers demand higher compensation and commit less land, while environmentalist and civic‐minded farmers are more inclined to participate and enrol larger areas, even at lower compensation levels. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring agri‐environmental contracts to farmers' identities through for example framing of agri‐environmental contracts accordingly. Privately financed schemes, such as those based on crowdfunding platforms, must address perceived risks, offer advisory support and develop communication strategies that resonate with different identity profiles. Recognising farmer identity as a behavioural driver can enhance participation in both public and private agri‐environmental schemes and inform more effective contract design.
{"title":"Private or Public? Farmer Preferences and Identities in Agri‐Environmental Contract Implementation","authors":"Christoph Schulze, Klaus Glenk, Julian Sagebiel, Bettina Matzdorf","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70011","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates farmer preferences for publicly and privately financed agri‐environmental contracts. Using a labelled Discrete Choice Experiment with 366 German grassland farmers, we examine trade‐offs between payment schemes (public/private), payment criteria (practice‐based/result‐based), collaboration options, and advisory services. Our results show that farmers require higher compensation for privately financed contracts compared to public ones. On average, respondents prefer practice‐based over result‐based payments and value free advisory services, particularly in private schemes. Preferences for collaborative implementation indicate a strong desire for autonomy. A key contribution of this study lies in integrating farmer identity into the analysis. Drawing on a psychometric scale of ‘good farmer’ attributes, we identify three latent identities—productivist, environmentalist and civic‐minded—and show that these significantly explain heterogeneity in preferences and land enrolment decisions. Productivist farmers demand higher compensation and commit less land, while environmentalist and civic‐minded farmers are more inclined to participate and enrol larger areas, even at lower compensation levels. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring agri‐environmental contracts to farmers' identities through for example framing of agri‐environmental contracts accordingly. Privately financed schemes, such as those based on crowdfunding platforms, must address perceived risks, offer advisory support and develop communication strategies that resonate with different identity profiles. Recognising farmer identity as a behavioural driver can enhance participation in both public and private agri‐environmental schemes and inform more effective contract design.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145295970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gene editing (GE), a revolutionary genetic engineering technology that makes targeted modifications to plant and animal genomes, offers the potential to address key challenges in food security, nutrition, safety, health, agricultural productivity, and sustainability, yet consumer demand for GE foods remains uncertain and complex. This study reviews (1) the factors affecting consumer preferences for GE foods and (2) studies on consumer acceptance of GE foods that feature comparisons to genetically modified (GM) foods. The present manuscript also discusses implications for industry and policymakers and identifies areas where additional research would further promote the acceptance of GE technology. A total of 74 consumer studies were identified, reviewed, and discussed. The results indicate that many factors drive consumer preferences for GE foods, mainly sensory attributes, nutritional content, price, risk perception, trust in institutions, consumer socio‐demographics, and available knowledge and information about GE technology. Furthermore, we found that consumers generally prefer GE foods over GM foods, but this preference varies depending on specific products and contexts. These findings provide useful insights for science, industry, and policymakers aiming to develop, commercialise, and regulate GE foods. Finally, several future research avenues are outlined and discussed.
{"title":"Consumer Preferences for Gene‐Edited Foods: A Review of the Literature and Discussion of Industry and Policy Implications","authors":"Jia Han, Daniele Asioli, Giacomo Zanello, Vincenzina Caputo","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70008","url":null,"abstract":"Gene editing (GE), a revolutionary genetic engineering technology that makes targeted modifications to plant and animal genomes, offers the potential to address key challenges in food security, nutrition, safety, health, agricultural productivity, and sustainability, yet consumer demand for GE foods remains uncertain and complex. This study reviews (1) the factors affecting consumer preferences for GE foods and (2) studies on consumer acceptance of GE foods that feature comparisons to genetically modified (GM) foods. The present manuscript also discusses implications for industry and policymakers and identifies areas where additional research would further promote the acceptance of GE technology. A total of 74 consumer studies were identified, reviewed, and discussed. The results indicate that many factors drive consumer preferences for GE foods, mainly sensory attributes, nutritional content, price, risk perception, trust in institutions, consumer socio‐demographics, and available knowledge and information about GE technology. Furthermore, we found that consumers generally prefer GE foods over GM foods, but this preference varies depending on specific products and contexts. These findings provide useful insights for science, industry, and policymakers aiming to develop, commercialise, and regulate GE foods. Finally, several future research avenues are outlined and discussed.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145235379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：